Backstab

[Delia]

Taken from Guilds & Accepting

Drake said

The descriptions alone should have been more than enough to indicate what that particular action entailed as far as a good/neutral/evil alignment went.

Roleplay should have taken over from there utilizing those code prompts and following on accordingly. Sadly, the power and usefullness of the attack made it easy for people to chose to ignore that obvious indication of the attacks nature.

Hence the need to add additional code to make that sink in all the more clearly. The repercussions for using the attack should have been coming from the playerbase, those of good and neutral alignment at least.

Isengoo said

I think you took my point out of context. The game already provides for checks and balances so people know if their RP is out of sync with how their character should be behaving given the circumstances (reputation, karma, other people?). I don't think bothering the wizards with any action you take is necessary given the system already does it for you.

I guess I should state that I still don't think backstabbing is all that bad, compared to torturing people, especially when used for good ends, and I don't like that the system doesn't reflect this, but I understand the near impossibility of capturing all things under the karma or reputation system when an inputted command isn't used.

If you imagine the process of backstabbing someone, let's imagine the scenario of a good guy backstabbing an evil guy (for all intents and purposes) the only real action involved is sneaking behind someone to place a dagger in their back. The dagger being placed into their flesh isn't outside the norm of everyday combat, excepting some strange moral device people have attached to it under this circumstance. Often, 'good' people will lie in wait and ambush other people with nothing happening to their karma or their reputation because they didn't input a command, but I say there is no difference between this type of behavior and a backstab.

Now, let us examine the torture of someone. For this hypothetical, let's say the torturers are good and the tortured is evil. This is also a common enough occurrence, so nobody can say I am wrong for fear of looking foolish. So, the good agent here has a weapon, let's say a saw, and he slowly cleaves through the evil agent's flesh, while they are chained up, with express intent to cause pain. The intent with the backstab is to kill, the intent here is to cause pain so as to derive information. I ask you, which is more sinister? Surely, nobody can say the backstab is the more evil of the acts.

Therefore, Rangers backstabbing orcs seems perfectly reasonable in my eyes, if Crusaders/Taniel Priests torturing people is also acceptable.

[Naga]

Obviously the karma penalty was implemented to balance backstab, which is a very devastating but shameful move. But regardless of being shameful, I don't see how it is intrinsically evil, so I agree with Isengorn in some respects. It is a bit silly when you had, at one point, a Tanielite priest performing backstab himself and having his karma checked in order to determine if it is intrinsically evil. The karma should reflect a reality, not be used by players to define it. And when they try to make up reasons, they're usually not very good. The arguments I've heard from Tanielite priests explaining why it is evil range from "it's not fair fighting" to "it's a tactic of thieves" or "the Lord doesn't like it."

Now that there are weighty reputation penalties in various areas, I'd actually support doubling the backstab reputation penalty and getting rid of the karma one. Everyone will be suspicious as hell when they hear you are a bastard, and you can expect the clerics will watch your karma like a hawk. And saying "I was just backstabbing things" won't be any defense---because folks won't think it's acceptable, and nobody will want to spend time around you because it will mean they won't be able to use basic services in the city if they take a reputation hit.

[Delia]

As I've understood it backstab was meant to be kept as an isolated skill because of its power. The trouble began as it was quite easy to pick up and any character with little agi, light armours and a dagger could practice it to a great effect. Even more so after the skill-system change(as it happened with meditation also...before it was more of a shao-only skill)

While I agree that is it prudent to have some control and repercussions for backstab, I think it is poorly handled in game. I mean, if you sneak behind someone and poke him in the back with a dagger you are EVIL. If you sneak behind someone and poke him in the back with a twohander or a spear you are only being slightly mean.

Sure you affiliate yourself with a mean group of people when you are using the dagger...but how come using some different tool in the same way does not? Sure code is code but within the game world there are no strings of code for our characters to go around.

[gojin]

The karma should reflect a reality, not be used by players to define it.

Yes!

Now that there are weighty reputation penalties in various areas, I'd actually support doubling the backstab reputation penalty and getting rid of the karma one. Everyone will be suspicious as hell when they hear you are a bastard, and you can expect the clerics will watch your karma like a hawk. And saying "I was just backstabbing things" won't be any defense---because folks won't think it's acceptable, and nobody will want to spend time around you because it will mean they won't be able to use basic services in the city if they take a reputation hit.

If this were implemented it would end the backstab debate once and for all.

[Drake]

I mean, if you sneak behind someone and poke him in the back with a dagger you are EVIL. If you sneak behind someone and poke him in the back with a twohander or a spear you are only being slightly mean.

That is assuming that there is any sneaking involved in a normal combat encounter, which there is not.

And so far as I am aware there's no advantage in combat, other than the standard first strike one for sneaking in on someone and then attacking them. An advantage you can get sneaking, or not.

But regardless of the lack of advantage, adding a reputation and karma effect for the act of attacking while hidden probably wouldn't be out of place.

Drake

[Delia]

But regardless of the lack of advantage, adding a reputation and karma effect for the act of attacking while hidden probably wouldn't be out of place.

Atleast it would be consistent, which is something I value and it would make the whole backstabbing issue IC a lot more coherent.

[tessa]

Speaking as one that uses sneaky tactics often, I think it would be quite fine to have sneak-attacks in general taken into consideration.

[Drake]

Speaking as one that uses sneaky tactics often, I think it would be quite fine to have sneak-attacks in general taken into consideration.

Might want to list these sneaky attacks here for admin to review and add effects to if they agree.

As with backstab, I don't really see the average person in the world of Geas, good, bad, or otherwise, wanting to have someone who likes to jump out of hiding and try to whamp things with pointy or blunt objects hanging around them, especially behind them.

Drake

[tessa]

Might want to list these sneaky attacks here for admin to review and add effects to if they agree.

I was thinking of something like sneaking up to an unsuspecting orc, then jumping out of the bushes (or other hidey spots) shouting wildly (battlescream), or just jumping out of the bushes and charging into him (bodycheck/tackle).

With combat commencing afterwards, of course.

I don't really see the average person in the world of Geas, good, bad, or otherwise, wanting to have someone who likes to jump out of hiding and try to whamp things with pointy or blunt objects hanging around them, especially behind them.

We should probably take into consideration animal-hunters and the typical halfling in this case.

Or mischievious Tessas.

[krelji]

Might want to list these sneaky attacks here for admin to review and add effects to if they agree.

Generally I would add all types of attacking a target from a hidden position, for
as long as the target could be attacked via backstab, to this list. Since I'm currently
not aware of any animals that could be backstabbed, it could still be used to hunt animals. It doesn't really matter if you use a special to initiate the attack, or simply use kill <target>.

[vurdijak]

If sneaky attacks of all kinds dont already hurt your karma with Asral, and maybe even your favour, they should. Fleeing combat should also hurt these things. I dont remember any negative repercussions of this sort when my Asral was backstabbing, then moving away and waiting for targets to bleed out.

[Olrane]

I'd love to see it all based on reputation and not karma, but that's not balanced and it's not going to happen because the good gods have already had their opinion on it.

However, I have to agree that the addition of penalties to attacks from hiding would be more consistent and less awkward. If someone fires a deadly arrow or gores you from a hidden place, he should be treated just like a backstabber. Maybe the penalty should be less than with the actual "backstab" skill.

Naturally none of this should extend to attacks on animals.

[Herst]

I dont remember any negative repercussions of this sort when my Asral was backstabbing, then moving away and waiting for targets to bleed out.

Perhaps as players, we should be a little bit more responsible so things do not always have to be mandated.

If you knew that it was not very Asralish to do, why did you do it? Because it was convenient and easy?

[sun]

I guess I should state that I still don't think backstabbing is all that bad, compared to torturing people, especially when used for good ends, and I don't like that the system doesn't reflect this, but I understand the near impossibility of capturing all things under the karma or reputation system when an inputted command isn't used.

The problem is that this is how you think of it - not how it is so obviously defined (at least by now) as evil/bad/naughty. You can go on foreever to try and justify it outside the game, but fact is that it's evil in Geas. You have to separate OOC and IC, it isn't meant to be reflected in game. If water was black in Geas, you can argue that water is actually transparent and nice to drink - but it does not change a thing in the game world. The morals used in game and outside the game are different: it is decided by the creators of the game, and players should prove their ability to play according to a different ethic/moral mindset. I do not see what the problem is, why is it so hard to accept?

I think burning "evil" people on a stake is quite horrible, but in game that is good. Definition. Nice is not the same as good, although in real-life you might argue that for example empathy is what defines "goodness" (if you believe such a term exist at all). But that's almost the point of the game, we travel to a place that is different from our own. There's no separation of church and state, there is no UN, there is no equal rights. That's the fun.

You can of course define your own idea, but it seems to me like geasians are obviously honourablistic and likes people who openly and straightly display their intentions. "Real men declare war". Taking advantage of someone's unawareness is considered cheap shot, etc.

[Olrane]

Rangers, Shaolin, even Asral priests used backstab back in those days. Any newbie who might have thought it was off would be pummeled with the realization that it was perfectly acceptable and fairly necessary to be competitive as a lightly armoured fighter.

That didn't make it right. The code came at the right time, because the playerbase was not regulating it by themselves. It's easy for you to come and be appalled, but in the context of the MUD it was seen as a nasty but justifiable means to a good end. Machiavellian principles abounded.

The only thing that's disappointing for me as a player is the introduction of the karma system. I would happily have had a pervasive reputation system, but making something that will always see good or evil actions can be a real let-down. I understand that it was designed this way in order to make being evil harder and more easily punishable, but I see it as a game breaker for roguish characters. Backstab and other thief skills have been very hard to learn even with constant practice due to the fact that one always must be hidden and safe from the eyes of others. Now even the most sneaky and smart new players of thief characters will be slapped with a sucky reality - go Satho or die. It's just abuse of the system to try to balance out backstab/thief skill karma mali with "good" actions such as donating to beggars.

[vurdijak]

To answer Herst's question, I first pose another question. Were you around back then? Geas as a game is changing all the time. What is acceptable is changing as well. Who says I knew it wasn't 'Asralish'?

Read Olrane's post. In all the many hours I did this (days worth of in game play time), in front of Asral priests, Taniel priests, and probably everyone else in the entire mud most likely including wizard's alts, not a single word was uttered about it being evil (at least that I recall). The game was completely different back then, than it is now. When all your fellow roleplayers accept and encourage a behavior and there is nothing codewise to contradict it, guess what....there IS nothing wrong with it.

[Herst]

To answer Herst's question, I first pose another question. Were you around back then? Geas as a game is changing all the time. What is acceptable is changing as well. Who says I knew it wasn't 'Asralish'?

Read Olrane's post. In all the many hours I did this (days worth of in game play time), in front of Asral priests, Taniel priests, and probably everyone else in the entire mud most likely including wizard's alts, not a single word was uttered about it being evil (at least that I recall). The game was completely different back then, than it is now. When all your fellow roleplayers accept and encourage a behavior and there is nothing codewise to contradict it, guess what....there IS nothing wrong with it.

Yes, I was around back then. I do remember quite a few people actually (including myself) who said that anyone who follows Asral should not resort to any such type of cowardly tactics. Since Asralites are supposed to be honourable, I would hope you would have realized it wasn't Asralish. If you did not, that can only be blamed on the Asral clergy themselves though.

[Delia]

Good and Evil, sure burning people on a stake is good considered by some group but that does not define that goodness as being applicable universally within the game world. Different interpretations of good and evil are abound all around the game world. Of course one can dumb it down to bad karma -> evil good karma -> good but everything does not need to be entirely black and white and I doubt that the Geas world is made that way. Sure we players as "heroes" in the game world can think just about whatever we wish but I doubt that the average Bandama villager or the regular elven citizen thinks of lofty things and dreams about ultimate pure whitey burning goodness. Burning satho on a stake is a necessity for survival, not necessarily an active act of goodness as it could be viewed. Just like criminals are maimed, publicly ridiculed and hanged. Sometimes the zealous religious leadership that is quite visible makes you blind to the fact that the rest of the world is comprised of a gray mass of people. The vocal ones dictating morals, ethics, the good and the bad are in fact the minority.

I would even argue that most of this mass are not even half as zealous as the player characters are. Probably some only pay lip service to a god because their parents did, their neighbors do and their friends do. If someone sneaked around suspiciously it warrants suspicion in return. If someone was seen backstabbing(or engaging in a similar sneak attack)someone in a dark alley you naturally want to avoid trouble for you and the people you care about. An outcry of "You EVIL backstabber you!" seems quite out of place, Geas has gods and their devoted servants for that.

Geas also has a history of soldiering and accounts speak of halfling assassins used in the wars if I am not completely incorrect. Any army not indulging in "thief tactics" is a dead army. Using scouts, sneaking and killing off enemy scouts and guards as quickly and silently as possible so that intelligence can be gathered and brought back to base camp. Similarly it would seem quite nonsensical for, let us say a ranger stumbling across a band of sleeping orcs who just have passed off after their murderous rampage and the good fun with the loot afterwards. Should he cry "Wake up you scum and face justice!" or...should he just slit the throats of as many he can in order to face the rest safely and possibly rescue some prisoners in the process(if alive)?

Even the Asraelite indulging in backstabbing...was he a devout Asraelite knowledgeable in Asral lore and manners? Perhaps he was just someone paying lip service and doing whatever he could in order to survive. Gods and mortals be damned. Even if you are a follower should one be the perfect fanatical follower by default and automatically not do actions a, b and c ever? Even feel slightly tempted?

All IMHO.

[sun]

Good and Evil, sure burning people on a stake is good considered by some group but that does not define that goodness as being applicable universally within the game world. Different interpretations of good and evil are abound all around the game world. Of course one can dumb it down to bad karma -> evil good karma -> good but everything does not need to be entirely black and white and I doubt that the Geas world is made that way. Sure we players as "heroes" in the game world can think just about whatever we wish but I doubt that the average Bandama villager or the regular elven citizen thinks of lofty things and dreams about ultimate pure whitey burning goodness. Burning satho on a stake is a necessity for survival, not necessarily an active act of goodness as it could be viewed. Just like criminals are maimed, publicly ridiculed and hanged. Sometimes the zealous religious leadership that is quite visible makes you blind to the fact that the rest of the world is comprised of a gray mass of people. The vocal ones dictating morals, ethics, the good and the bad are in fact the minority.

I think that the good gods give a reward for burning people at the stake, so actually I think that example is actually quite good. Not every character must think Taniel is good or that his ideals are, but in general we may say that those ideals are "good" in Geas.

I would even argue that most of this mass are not even half as zealous as the player characters are. Probably some only pay lip service to a god because their parents did, their neighbors do and their friends do. If someone sneaked around suspiciously it warrants suspicion in return. If someone was seen backstabbing(or engaging in a similar sneak attack)someone in a dark alley you naturally want to avoid trouble for you and the people you care about. An outcry of "You EVIL backstabber you!" seems quite out of place, Geas has gods and their devoted servants for that.

I definetily agree that not everyone are zealous like i.e. crusaders. But I also think they also give silent support. I am not sure about the outcry.. why would it be out of place? Maybe not in place since you might rather try to run away, but other than that?

Why people support gods, well sure, many probably begin with what their parents did - but gods are also real in Geas. It would not make sense to be an atheist, so I think that people do give a clear support for a particular god.

Geas also has a history of soldiering and accounts speak of halfling assassins used in the wars if I am not completely incorrect. Any army not indulging in "thief tactics" is a dead army. Using scouts, sneaking and killing off enemy scouts and guards as quickly and silently as possible so that intelligence can be gathered and brought back to base camp. Similarly it would seem quite nonsensical for, let us say a ranger stumbling across a band of sleeping orcs who just have passed off after their murderous rampage and the good fun with the loot afterwards. Should he cry "Wake up you scum and face justice!" or...should he just slit the throats of as many he can in order to face the rest safely and possibly rescue some prisoners in the process(if alive)?

I do not know of any halfling assassins(?) The only thing I can find in the history files is scouting and sabotage, which is kind of different from backstab. That is also reflected in gameplay, since sneaking seems to be "good".

Even the Asraelite indulging in backstabbing...was he a devout Asraelite knowledgeable in Asral lore and manners? Perhaps he was just someone paying lip service and doing whatever he could in order to survive. Gods and mortals be damned. Even if you are a follower should one be the perfect fanatical follower by default and automatically not do actions a, b and c ever? Even feel slightly tempted?

I agree that worshipping Asral or any other deity automatically means that you must be a perfect follower. That is boring. All characters should can have flaws. It's just funny though how so many choose flaws, like backstab, that.. erm well.. make them stronger.

I do not think anyone should dare to damn the god they worship. I mean, you know they are there. It seems kind of foolish, unless that is exactly your intention, to be foolish.

[Herst]

It seems that every character wanted to have those flaws.

Why? Because it made them stronger, as Sun said.

The point is not that all followers should be perfect followers. The point was that it would have been nice if someone would have at least cared enough to do something at all.

In an RP MUD, it is hard to find people that care enough to sacrifice one strong skill for the sake of RP. That was my point.